Cookies on this BBC website

We use cookies to ensure you get the best website experience. If you continue without
changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website.
However you can change your cookie settings at any time.

Test Your Argument

The experimental Test Your Argument feature allows you to see how you'd fare against the arguments of the contributors. There are three steps, offering you three opportunities to extend, critique and build the best arguments possible.

The participants

Witnesses

Kate Greasley - lecturer in the University College London Faculty of Laws

Ed Condon - Catholic canon lawyer

Wendy Savage - retired gynaecologist

Panellists

Giles Fraser - priest and polemicist.

Anne McElvoy - senior editor at The Economist.

Claire Fox - from the Institute of Ideas.

Tim Stanley - historian.

About the programme

Under the 1967 law, terminations were made legal for the first time in limited circumstances, with the agreement of two doctors. In practice this has meant that it has not usually been difficult to get an abortion in the first 6 months of pregnancy. The technology has changed: the threshold at which a baby has a good chance of surviving outside the womb has decreased, so at 23 weeks' gestation, one foetus might be aborted while another is put in intensive care. Social attitudes have changed and many doctors now support the official line of the British Medical Association which wants abortion to be decriminalised completely.

So is it time for abortion to be treated like any other medical procedure that is regulated by the General Medical Council? On the other side of the dispute are those who say the Act has been too liberally interpreted. With nearly 200,000 abortions a year in the UK, they say we effectively have 'abortion on demand' and they want the law to be tightened to protect the rights of 'pre-born children' and their mothers. Whatever the details of time-limits and interpretation of the law, the moral dividing line remains as deeply-etched as it was in 1967: it is between those who think a human life starts at conception and those who don't.

Have a go at taking part in the debate yourself. Can you make the best choices to win the argument?

1 Strengthen

Here we want you to argue the anti-abortion case. There are different ways to make sure your line of argument is as strong as possible. Choose something from the boxes below to help you argue this view.

The unborn foetus should have human status in its own right.

Click now to select a line of argument that will best support the statement.

Next, anticipate objections – how might you stop your opponent from hitting you with a strong attacking point before they get a chance to come up with it?

Finally, your opponent argues against you by saying, rights begin at birth. Lead with a strong attacking point - what might throw your opponent off course?

2 Critique

Now let's try arguing the pro-abortion case. When you're arguing you need to develop the skill of critique as you're going along. That means listening hard to distinguish what types of claims are being made

I also used to go on platforms and say, it's like a mass holocaust, and then I actually found out about the quickening and St Thomas Aquinas agreeing and I started thinking maybe...
Click to listen on iPlayer